Nato allows to say “fuck it”, because Nato article 5 only requires some support.
But EU article 42 requires support by all means.
However, because of the implication, nothing military will happen.
Question remains: would such an act be enough motivation for Congress to impeach Trump?
That must have been accounted for since the situation was the same during the time of the SU. Finland was neutral, but the SU would have learned from Belgium and France.
I am always this gullible.
Good argument. Is it strategically the same to defend? My impression is that the border to the Baltics is much smaller and without looking it up, could it be that historically, armies didn’t take that route for some reasons?
In any case, the additional length of the border could be the problem.
Good thing that only Congress can declare war
Yes, I know that it’s not socially advantagious to have these arguments. The good thing about lemmy is that it is nevertheless possible to have them.
I only know of one reason for imperial conquest: that there is gas at the Krim and Ukraine would threaten the Russian monopoly on energy supply for Europe.
To me, that is not motivation enough for the war.
Removed by mod
Which strategic advantage lies in conquering Ukraine? Russia doesn’t need land. The future center of civilisation lies in Eastasia. Why waste resources in the west?
Conquering Kyiv for nostalgic reasons is stupid. I don’t think that Putin thinks like that.
That’s very interesting. I didn’t know this text, just a smilar one.
This doesn’t convince me that Putin is a history fanatic. For sure, there is some myth building, and Russia is not good at it. But it seems to be a tool to support the war, and not the other way round.
Why has Putin waited so long? Russia is not using new weapons. They could have conquered Ukraine more easily twenty years ago.
Removed by mod
This would require to accept that Putin is stupid. I don’t see that.
Europe doesn’t have to push.
Trump is doing the tariffs to stop the Dollar from being world currency according to Yanis Varoufakis
Removed by mod
That other reason, too often it’s Western intervention.
As a consequence, I believe that there won’t be a peaceful transition into a multipolar world, because that could have already happened.
That advantage could have been given up and shared. Instead it is defended, even with military power. Why fight those wars now and make enemies?
an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power
Article 42 leaves no space for selling out.
The promise of the EU is mutual support while remaining independent. There are enough citizens who don’t want to become another united states. With too much push for unity, there is a risk that the EU breaks apart.
The joint investment response is not necessary since the EU is stronger than Russia. Given van der Leyen’s vaccine history, there is a big risk that the money will not be spent wisely.
Thank you, but it doesn’t work for me:
Which war does the EU face? The military of the EU is already bigger than the Russian military. European air superiority will destroy any Russian attack.
Does GB need a cookie? Why do they toot their own horn?
Edit: Does it not feel out of character to you? There is no ceasefire agreement, just an agreement to participate in negotiations. I would assume that to a British prime minister, that’s not worth mentioning and when the BBC writes it like this, that it is a subtle putdown.
See also: instances with individual all feeds https://reddthat.com/post/36815847
Who wants an intelligent sex bot? You could as well do regular dating.